ACQIS LLC v. Quanta Computer: Computer Interface Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | ACQIS LLC v. Quanta Computer, Inc. |
| Case Number | 6:23-cv-00265 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Western District of Texas, before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright |
| Duration | Apr 2023 – Feb 2026 2 years 10 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Stipulated Dismissal |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Quanta laptops (Intel Kaby Lake), Apple MacBook Pro (2017), iMac (2017), QuantaGrid D51B-1U server |
Case Overview
After nearly three years of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, ACQIS LLC’s patent infringement campaign against Quanta Computer, Inc. concluded with a stipulated dismissal—leaving the courthouse without a public verdict but signaling a likely negotiated resolution between the parties. Filed on April 10, 2023, and closed on February 18, 2026 (Case No. 6:23-cv-00265), the dispute centered on ten patents covering computer bus interface and processor integration technologies, with accused products ranging from Intel Kaby Lake processor-powered laptops and iMac systems to enterprise servers.
For patent attorneys and IP professionals, this case is a notable data point in ACQIS’s long-running patent assertion campaign spanning multiple defendants and jurisdictions. For R&D teams and product engineers, the accused product lineup—including consumer MacBook Pro systems and commercial server platforms—underscores the breadth of modern computer interface patent risk. The dismissal with prejudice of all plaintiff claims, combined with a without-prejudice counterclaim dismissal, provides strategic texture worth examining closely.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) with an established portfolio targeting computer bus interface and system-on-chip integration technologies, known for systematic licensing and litigation.
🛡️ Defendant
A Taiwan-based multinational and one of the world’s largest contract manufacturers of notebook computers, servers, and cloud computing hardware, supplying major OEM clients globally.
Patents at Issue
The complaint asserted ten patents across two distinct patent families. The portfolio covers computer interface architectures—including peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus technologies, processor-to-memory communication, and integrated chipset designs.
- • US8756359B2
- • US8626977B2
- • US9529769B2
- • US8977797B2
- • US9529768B2
- • US9703750B2
- • US8234436B2
- • USRE044739E
- • USRE044654E
- • USRE045140E
Integrating new computer hardware?
Check if your chipset design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case closed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)—a voluntary stipulated dismissal signed by both parties. The specific terms:
- • All claims asserted by Plaintiff ACQIS LLC: dismissed with prejudice
- • All counterclaims by Quanta Computer: dismissed without prejudice
- • Each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
No damages amount was publicly disclosed. No injunctive relief was ordered. The specific financial terms of any underlying settlement agreement, if one exists, were not made part of the public record.
Legal Significance
This case adds to the documented ACQIS litigation campaign, which has previously targeted Dell, Lenovo, EMC, and others on overlapping patent families. The processor-integration theory—targeting Intel Kaby Lake architecture as the infringing component—mirrors claim mapping strategies used in other ACQIS litigations and may inform claim construction positions in related or future proceedings.
The reliance on a chipset-level infringement theory (targeting the i5-7360U as the locus of infringement rather than the end device) is an increasingly common approach in hardware patent litigation and has implications for exhaustion doctrine arguments and supply chain liability analysis.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in computer interface design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation:
- Identify key claim construction positions from ACQIS’s past cases
- Understand the landscape of computer interface patents
- Analyze strategies for negotiating stipulated dismissals
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product’s technical specifications or design features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents and provides risk assessment
- Get actionable insights for design-around strategies
High Risk Area
Computer bus interface & processor integration
10 Patents Asserted
Across two distinct families
Early FTO is Key
For complex chipset integrations
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals with asymmetric prejudice terms (plaintiff with, counterclaims without) are standard settlement architecture—parse them carefully for preserved rights.
Search related case law →Reissue patents in the asserted portfolio signal intentional claim broadening; recapture doctrine defenses should be evaluated early.
Explore precedents →W.D. Texas before Judge Albright remains a preferred plaintiff venue for hardware patent assertions.
Analyze W.D. Tex. dockets →ACQIS’s multi-defendant, multi-patent campaign strategy exemplifies systematic PAE assertion; monitor related dockets for claim construction positions that may bind future cases.
Track PAE campaigns →The “each party bears own fees” provision confirms no exceptional case finding—relevant to litigation risk modeling.
Assess litigation risk →Frequently Asked Questions
Ten patents were asserted, including US8756359B2, US8626977B2, US9529769B2, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2, US8234436B2, and reissue patents USRE044739E, USRE044654E, and USRE045140E—covering computer bus interface and processor integration technologies.
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and counterclaims without prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees. No public damages award was entered.
The case reinforces chipset-level assertion theories and the strategic value of reissue patents in hardware IP campaigns. Defendants should prioritize early IPR evaluation and reissue recapture analysis when facing similar portfolios.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 6:23-cv-00265, W.D. Tex.
- USPTO Patent Public Search
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- PatSnap — AI-native platform for global innovation intelligence
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.